Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34667872›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2021

Stakeholder perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings.

Stephanie R Morain, Debra J H Mathews, Kevin Weinfurt, Elizabeth May, Juli M Bollinger, Gail Geller, Jeremy Sugarman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Stephanie R MorainCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Baylor College of Medicine Houston Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7278-7517
Debra J H MathewsBerman Institute of Bioethics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA.
Kevin WeinfurtDepartment of Population Health Sciences Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA.
Elizabeth MayBerman Institute of Bioethics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA.
Juli M BollingerBerman Institute of Bioethics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA.
Gail GellerBerman Institute of Bioethics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA.
Jeremy SugarmanBerman Institute of Bioethics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7022-8332

Funding

NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory-Coordinating Center (U24)U24AT009676 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LESLEY H CURTIS, Adrian Hernandez · 2017 to 2026
$21.5M
NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT009676
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are becoming widespread since they are relatively inexpensive and offer important benefits for healthcare decision-making, can also present practical, ethical, and legal challenges. One such challenge involves managing "pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings" (PCT-CFs), or information emerging in a PCT that is unrelated to the primary research question(s), yet may have implications for individual patients, clinicians, or health care systems from whom or within which data were collected. The expansion of PCTs makes it likely healthcare systems will increasingly encounter PCT-CFs, yet little guidance exists regarding their appropriate management.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders experienced in the conduct or oversight of PCTs and those in health system leadership. Interviews explored respondents' experience with PCTs and PCT-CFs, and actual or hypothetical reactions to PCT-CF management. We used standard methods of qualitative analysis to identify key themes.

findingsForty-one stakeholders participated. Four key themes emerged. First, discussions of PCT-CFs are complicated by layers of ambiguity related to both the nature of PCTs themselves, and unanticipated results that emanate from them. Second, management of PCT-CFs is context-specific, and not amenable to a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Third, there was a wide diversity of attitudes regarding the scope of researcher responsibilities in PCTs. Fourth, PCT-CFs had generally not been previously considered by respondents, but there was widespread belief in the importance of prospective planning to anticipate such issues in future PCTs.

conclusionsPCT-CFs are likely to increase, yet those charged with PCT-CF decision-making and their disclosure are unlikely to have experience with these issues. Further deliberation about the ethical obligations and implementation processes regarding PCT-CFs is needed. To enhance the likelihood of developing sound policies and practices, such deliberations should include the input and perspectives of key stakeholders in PCTs, including professionals, policy makers, and patients.

Indexed as

embedded clinical trialsethicspragmatic clinical trialsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34667872
PMCPMC8512737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.